TY - JOUR
T1 - Impact of baseline IOP, vacuum, and different docking mechanisms, and their interaction on IOP rise in femtosecond laser-assisted refractive and cataract surgery.
AU - Mariacher, Siegfried
AU - Laubichler, Peter
AU - Mariacher, M
AU - Wendelstein, Jascha
AU - Fischinger, Isaak
AU - Bolz, Matthias
PY - 2019/12
Y1 - 2019/12
N2 - Purpose
To study the intraocular pressure (IOP) variation during vacuum and docking of femtosecond laser application.
Setting
Department for Ophthalmology, Kepler University Hospital, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria.
Design
Experimental study.
Methods
Intracameral intraocular pressure (IOP) was monitored in 30 porcine ex vivo models using a dual femtosecond laser platform (VICTUS). Five different baseline IOP levels (10 to 30 mm Hg) were assessed during fluid-filled (liquid) docking, full-contact (applanating) docking, and vacuum application without docking.
Results
Raising the baseline intracameral IOP from 10 to 30 mm Hg increased the IOP from 27.55 mm Hg ± 5.93 (SD) to 56.85 ± 6.10 mm Hg in the fluid-filled docking group, and from 60.91 ± 8.41 mm Hg to 90.11 ± 6.64 mm Hg in the full-contact docking group. The full-contact docking procedure per se (excluding vacuum effect) increased the IOP by 61.7% (+36.58 ± 5.84 mm Hg). In contrast, fluid-filled docking (excluding vacuum effect) raised the IOP by only 3.1% (+0.72 ± 2.71 mm Hg). Each 5 mm Hg reduction of baseline IOP resulted in a mean IOP reduction of 7.33 ± 3.05 mm Hg in the fluid-filled group, and 7.30 ± 6.88 mm Hg in the full-contact docking group (P < .001). Decreasing baseline intracameral IOP from 15 to 10 mm Hg resulted in the highest IOP reduction between all subgroups (P < .01).
Conclusions
Baseline IOP, docking procedures, and vacuum influenced IOP during femtosecond laser application in a synergistic manner. Lowering the baseline intracameral IOP resulted in a significantly lower IOP during fluid-filled docking for cataract surgery and full-contact docking for refractive surgery. Full-contact (applanating) docking resulted in a significantly higher IOP elevation compared with similar IOP values found during fluid-filled (liquid) docking and the application of the suction ring alone without docking.
AB - Purpose
To study the intraocular pressure (IOP) variation during vacuum and docking of femtosecond laser application.
Setting
Department for Ophthalmology, Kepler University Hospital, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria.
Design
Experimental study.
Methods
Intracameral intraocular pressure (IOP) was monitored in 30 porcine ex vivo models using a dual femtosecond laser platform (VICTUS). Five different baseline IOP levels (10 to 30 mm Hg) were assessed during fluid-filled (liquid) docking, full-contact (applanating) docking, and vacuum application without docking.
Results
Raising the baseline intracameral IOP from 10 to 30 mm Hg increased the IOP from 27.55 mm Hg ± 5.93 (SD) to 56.85 ± 6.10 mm Hg in the fluid-filled docking group, and from 60.91 ± 8.41 mm Hg to 90.11 ± 6.64 mm Hg in the full-contact docking group. The full-contact docking procedure per se (excluding vacuum effect) increased the IOP by 61.7% (+36.58 ± 5.84 mm Hg). In contrast, fluid-filled docking (excluding vacuum effect) raised the IOP by only 3.1% (+0.72 ± 2.71 mm Hg). Each 5 mm Hg reduction of baseline IOP resulted in a mean IOP reduction of 7.33 ± 3.05 mm Hg in the fluid-filled group, and 7.30 ± 6.88 mm Hg in the full-contact docking group (P < .001). Decreasing baseline intracameral IOP from 15 to 10 mm Hg resulted in the highest IOP reduction between all subgroups (P < .01).
Conclusions
Baseline IOP, docking procedures, and vacuum influenced IOP during femtosecond laser application in a synergistic manner. Lowering the baseline intracameral IOP resulted in a significantly lower IOP during fluid-filled docking for cataract surgery and full-contact docking for refractive surgery. Full-contact (applanating) docking resulted in a significantly higher IOP elevation compared with similar IOP values found during fluid-filled (liquid) docking and the application of the suction ring alone without docking.
UR - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31856995
U2 - 10.1016/j.jcrs.2019.07.020
DO - 10.1016/j.jcrs.2019.07.020
M3 - Article
SN - 0886-3350
VL - 45
SP - 1818
EP - 1825
JO - Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery
JF - Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery
IS - 12
ER -